27 agriculture and land use - demand for and supply of agricultural commodities

7/28/2019 27 Agriculture and Land Use - Demand for and Supply of Agricultural Commodities

1/13

Land Use Policy 26S (2009) S230S242

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / l a n d u s e p o l

Agriculture and land use: Demand for and supply of agricultural commodities,

characteristics of the farming and food industries, and implications for land use

in the UK

A. Angus a,, P.J. Burgess a, J. Morris a, J. Lingard b

a Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, United Kingdomb School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 21 September 2009

Accepted 25 September 2009

Keywords:

Agriculture

Land use

Farm incomes

Food commodity prices

Agri-environment

a b s t r a c t

Agriculture is the largest type of land use in the UK, accounting for about 77 per cent of the total area,

compared with an average 50 per cent for the EU27. But in common with most high-income countries,

agricultures contribution to UK GDP and employment is low, at about 0.5 and 1.8 per cent, respectively,

although the regional importance of the sector (and its associated food and farming industries) varies

considerably.

Of the 17.5 million ha used for agriculture, about 28 per cent is allocated to crops, and 67 per cent

is grassland. The grassland includes 4.4 million ha of sole-owned rough grazing and 1.1 million ha of

common land in mainly upland disadvantaged areas, primarily used for beef and sheep production.

This has a major influence on land use, especially in the northern and western parts of the UK.

From the 1930s until the mid-1980s, UK policy promoted increases in agricultural productivity to feed

the nation from its own resources. An array of income and production support measures encouraged

intensive farming, including a relative switch to arable farming in eastern areas. Since the early-1990s,

policies havesoughtsimultaneously to makeUK agricultureinternationally competitiveand environmen-

tally benign. Thesepolicies,evident in theAgenda 2000 Reforms of theCommon AgriculturalPolicy, pointthewayforwardfor thefuture.It islikely that a greater distinctionwill emergebetweenpolicies to protect

natural resourcesand enhancethe flow of non-market ecosystemservicesfrom ruralland, andagriculture

and food policies intended to encourage an appropriate proportion of national food requirements to be

met from domestic sources.

It seems likelythat over thenext 50 years, theUKs land area will be required to deliver an increasingly

diverse range of private and publicgoodsto meet growing human needs and aspirations. This will require

a balance of policy-driven goals and market forces. It will also need a much improved understanding of

the trade-offs between food production and environmental goals and of the institutional arrangements

required to achieve a balance of economic, social and environmental outcomes.

2009 Queens Printer and Controller of HMSO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Agriculture is the largest single type of land use in the UK.In 2008, approximately 77 per cent of the total area of the UK

(17.5million ha) was used for agricultural purposes (Defra, 2008c).

This compares with 50 per cent in the EU27, and 54, 47 and 50 per

cent for France, Germany and Spain, respectively (Eurostat, 2009).

While the Government Office for Science commissioned this review, the views

are those of the author(s), are independent of Government, and do not constitute

Government policy. Corresponding author at: Natural Resource Department, Building 42a, Canfield

University, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 1234 750111.

E-mail address: [email protected](A. Angus).

This means that UK rural land use, and the UK landscape in

lowland and upland areas, are largely the products of agricultural

management, which has evolved over many centuries. They areparticularly the result of government agricultural policies over the

past 70 years. These originally focused on food production and

have only more recently given prominence to environmental pro-

tection and the wide range of environmental services provided by

farmed areas. Likewise, future land use in the UK will be affected

by change in the food and farming sectors, and by priorities in the

management of natural resources and the environment.

This paper reviews the main changes in UK agricultural land

use and farming systems over the last 50 years and the underlying

causes and effects. The factors shaping the demand for and sup-

ply of agricultural commodities are explored, including changes in

0264-8377/$ see front matter 2009 Queens Printer and Controller of HMSO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.09.020
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02648377http://www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepolmailto:[email protected]://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_13/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.09.020http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_13/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.09.020mailto:[email protected]://www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepolhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02648377


2/13

A. Angus et al. / Land Use Policy 26S (2009) S230S242 S231

agriculturalpolicy andmarketsand theorganisation of thefarming

and food industries. Forecasts of agricultural landuse are reviewed,

providing perspectives on how the main drivers of change will

affect future land use in the UK. Although they are relevant to this

discussion, technological change and climate change are not dis-

cussedhere.The interested readeris directed to Burgess and Morris

(in press) and Rounsevell and Reay (in press).

UK agricultural land use and economic importance

Current UK agricultural land use

Table 1 shows current agricultural land use in the UK. About

28 per cent of the UK agricultural area is associated with arable

cropping, including fallow land, and about 67 per cent with grass-

land, mostly permanent pastures. Farm woodland and other land

occupies about 6 per cent of the total agricultural area. In 2002,

8.7 million ha (42 per cent of the agricultural area) of UK upland,

defined as land more than 240 m above sea level, was classed

as less favoured. These areas as regarded as disadvantaged from

an agricultural and economic perspective and are mostly grazed

for extensive agricultural production. Farmers there have received

additional income support (Defra, 2002). Table 1 also shows agri-

cultural land use for England, where arable crops and grassland

account for almost equal proportions of the total land area.

The proportion of the land area used for agricultural purposes

has declined steadily over the past century, mainly in response to

demands for other uses, predominantly urban and, in some areas,

forestry. In England (Fig. 1), agricultural land declined by about 12

Table 1

Agricultural land uses types in the UK and England in terms of area and proportion

of the total agricultural area (Defra, 2008a,c).

Land use UK England

(000 h a) (%) (000 h a) (%)

Crop cultivation 4,740 27 4031 43Bare fallow 195 1 159 2

Temporary grass under 5 years old 1,141 7 636 6

Grass over 5 years old 6,036 35 3428 37

Sole right rough grazing 4,359 25 578 6

All other land and Woodland 993 6 505 6

Total agricultural land 17,464 100 9339 100

Common land for grazinga 1,238 428

Total land used of agricultural purposes 18,702 9767

a Common land is not classified as agricultural land.

Fig. 1. Agricultural land use in England for selected years between 1900 and 2008.

Fig. 2. Agricultural land use in Wales for selected years between 1900 and 2007.

per cent over the period 19002008, and by about 7 per cent since

1950 (MAFF, 1968; Defra, 2008a). This equates to a total decline of

700,000ha, equivalent to 6500 ha per year leaving agriculture in

England.

From the1950s through to themid-1980s, reductions in farmed

areas were more than offset in output terms by increased yields,

associated with improvements in crop and livestock genetics,

nutrition, and health and land improvements such as drainage (see

Burgess and Morris, in press). Wheat yields per hectare and milk

yields per cow doubled during the period 19602000. Agricultural

systems tended to intensify in areas where they were most suited.

There wasa netchangefrom grasslandto arableproduction in Eng-

land and vice versa in Wales (Morris, 1992; Morris et al., 2005)

(Fig. 2). UK total agricultural output (weighted by value) rose by

almost 180 per centbetween the mid-1950s and a peak in the mid-

1980s, after which it declined slightly, mainly in response to policy

changes.

Table 2 shows changes in the distribution of crop and grassland

areas in theUK between 1995 and2008, reflectingthe relative prof-

itability of farming as a whole and of particular crop and livestock

enterprises. The decline in farmed areas, especially in arable crop-ping prior to 2000, reflects falling real product prices, anddeclining

farm incomes, which caused farmers to leave the industry. As the

Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food (2002) com-

mented at the time, landabandonment seemed a possible outcome.

However, in the short term, agriculturalland andotheragricultural

assets, including farmer skills, have limited alternative uses. This

results in supply-side inertia whereby farmers continue to operate

unprofitable businesses because economic adjustment is painful

and resource specificities prevent movement to non-agricultural

uses. More recently, the strengthening of crop prices, especially

for cereals and oilseeds and the curtailment of the set-aside pro-

gramme that took cereal land temporarily out of production, have

led to an increase in the areas of cereals and oilseeds. By compari-

son, sugar beet plantings have declined in response to falling sugarsupport prices, while relatively low livestock prices and high feed

prices have reduced the profitability of grassland farming. Some of

the increase in the grassland area since 2005 shown in Table 2 is

attributable to increased registration of smallholders under the EU

single farm payment scheme.

The underlying message here is that farmers are responsive

to prices, whether market- or policy-driven. They are particularly

responsive to upward movements in prices and changes in relative

commodity prices. As we have seen, they are much less responsive

to declining prices because of the inherent immobility of agricul-

tural assets, including land, and the lifestyle and taxation benefits

associated with farming.

Thus for most of the postwar period of declining commodity

prices in real terms, the farming industry has faced a continuing


3/13

S232 A. Angus et al. / Land Use Policy 26S (2009) S230S242

Table 2

UK agricultural land use (000 ha) and livestock numbers (thousands) for selected periods between 1979 and 2008.

Crops Average of 19791981 1990 2000 2008 Proportional change from

19791981 to 2008 (%)

Wheat 1,435 2,014 2,086 2,080 45

Barley 2,335 1,518 1,128 1,032 56

Oats 142 107 109 135 5

Other cereal crops 20 21 26 27 35

Oilseed rape 97 390 332 598 516Sugar beet not for stockfeeding 212 194 173 120 43

Peas for harvesting dry and field beans 78 216 208 148 90

Linseed 71 16

Other crops 198 132 192 269 36

Potatoes 200 177 166 144 28

Horticulture 270 208 172 170 37

Grassland

Permanent grass 5,145 5,316 5,363 6,036 17

Temporary grass 1,933 1,606 1,226 1,141 40

Rough grazing 5,093 4,965 4,445 4,359 14

Set-aside 0 72 567 0

Common rough grazing (estimate) 1,213 1,236 1,228 1,238 2%

Total agricultural area 18,899 18,884 18,311 18,702 1%

Livestock

Total cattle and calves 13,384 12,059 11,135 10,107 24%

Dairy cows 3,237 2,848 2,336 1,909 41%Beef cows 1,481 1,632 1,842 1,670 13%

Total sheep and lambs 31,163 43,799 42,264 33,131 6%

Total pigs 7,836 7,449 6,482 4,714 40%

Total fowl 125,712 124,615 154,504 166,200 32%

challenge of structural adjustment. It is these economic forces that

have caused the drift from the land of agricultural labour which

occursin alldeveloped economies, mainlybecause as general pros-

perity increases, people tend to spend a declining proportion of

their extra income on raw food.

In the livestock sector, the combination of improved produc-

tivity (Burgess and Morris, in press), with the imposition of milk

quotas, the abolition of the Milk Marketing Board in 1993, poor

financial returns, and static or decreasing demand have caused a

41 per cent decline in dairy cows between 19791981 and 2008

(Table 2). Similarly, there has been a reduction in the number of

beef cattle following the BSE crisis in the late-1990s and the reduc-

tion and eventual removal of specific beef production incentives

in 2005. The UK sheep flock peaked in 1992 at 44 million, because

of a favourable EU sheep meat regime. Following the end of this

regime, sheep numbers declined to 33 million in 2008.Pig numbers

have decreased rapidly over the period shown in Table 2, largely

as an effect of high feed prices, disease outbreaks and the cost of

implementing new welfare standards for pigs. The rapid increase

in poultry is a result of changing diets, with white meat becoming

more popular than beef and lamb with UK consumers.

The pattern of agricultural land use is also influencedby a com-

bination of climate, soils and topography. In England and Wales,

this results in a relative concentration of grassland and livestockfarming in the north and west, and arable farming in the east and

south (Fig. 3). Horticulture, including the production of high-value

vegetable and salad crops, is mainly concentrated in areas of peat

or light mineral soils, usually involving irrigation and controlled

drainage.These aremainly in East Anglia, theWest Midlands,south

west Lancashire, and south Yorkshire.

The economic performance of UK agriculture and implications for

land use

In line with other EU and OECD member states, agricultures

share of UK national economic output and employment has

declined over time as overall prosperity has increased. In 1900,

UK agricultures share of GDP was about 11 per cent ( National

Statistics, 2003). In 2007 thefarming sectorin theUK accountedfor

5.5 billion gross value added, equivalent to about 0.5 per cent of

total UK GDP. Employment in farming provided 531,000 full-time

equivalent jobs, about 1.8 per cent of the UK workforce. As a com-

parison, agricultures share of GDP in the EU-15 and in the US were

1.7and1.4 percent,respectively,in 2002(Normile and Price, 2004).

Crop outputs excluding horticulture totalled 3.5 billion in

2007. They form 22 per cent of the total output of UK agriculture,

which was valued at 15.7 billion, excluding single farm payments

and subsidies of 2.9 billion (Defra, 2008a,b,c,d,e). This output

occurs on about 27 per cent of the crop and grass area excluding

roughgrazing. Horticulture at 2.3billionaccountsfor about15 per

centof total output onabout 1.3 per cent ofthe cropand grass area,

confirming the relatively high-value per hectare of vegetable and

fruit production. Meat production (e.g. cattle, sheep,pigs andpoul-

try) contributes about 4.4 billion or 28 per cent of the total output

Fig.3. Cerealcrops andgrasslandas a proportion ofagriculturallandacrossEngland

(Defra, 2008a).


4/13


Table 3

Thenumber ofUK agriculturalholdings (000) within foursizegroupingsfor selected

years between 1990 and 2007.

Size (ha) 1990 1993 1995 1997 2000 2003 2005 2007

>50 81.0 79.9 80.1 78.4 75.5 75.4 74.5 74.0

2050 60.7 58.9 56.5 55.4 47.8 45.0 46.7 46.5

520 67.9 67.6 65.6 63.1 56.1 56.7 58.7 60.1


5/13


Table 5

Area of uncropped land (000 ha) in the UK for selected years between 1985 and

2008.

1985 1990 1995 2000 2008

Bare fallow 41 68 43 37 195

Set-aside 0 72 734 495 0

Total uncropped 41 140 777 532 195

Farm woodland 500 750

Source: MAFF (1989), Defra (2008a).

ers to grow oilseed and protein-rich crops, such as oilseed rape,

linseed and pea and bean crops.

These successive policy changes have impacted significantly

on the UK landscape. The drive for food production between

1940 and 1984 had led to substantial areas of permanent pasture

being ploughed and drained, usually with grant support. The rapid

increase in sheep numbers in both upland and lowland areas dur-

ingthe 1980s brought aboutby ewesubsidies wascurtailed in 1992

by regional ceilings. The increased support for protein and oilseed

crops has meant that oilseed rape and field beans have become

important new crops in the UK landscape.

The introduction of compulsory set-aside in 1992 led to alarge increase in the fallow arable land in the UK. Conversely

the removal of compulsory set-aside in 2008 in response to an

increase in cereal prices caused a rapid decline in the area set-

aside. The area of bare fallow increased rapidly in 2008 because

land voluntarily left as set-aside was reclassified as bare fallow

(Table 5).

From food supply to ecosystem services

During the 1970s and 1980s, numerous commentators high-

lighted the negative environmental effects of intensive farming

(Nature Conservancy Council, 1977; Shoard, 1980; Body, 1982),

including loss of habitats andwildlife, soil erosion andwater pollu-

tion. In response to this and to pressure from the UK, the EuropeanCommunity accepted the concept of Environmentally Sensitive

Areas in 1985, and a broad suite of accompanying measures

was introduced in the CAP reform of 1992 to promote the agri-

environment and farm woodlands. Through a range of schemes,

participating farmers were paid for managing a proportion of

their land to produce ecosystem services rather than food. This

included support for farmers to moveland fromproductive agricul-

ture into management practices that supported local biodiversity,

such as the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) and the Coun-

tryside Stewardship (CS) schemes. Incentives were also offered for

farmers to switch to organic systems, and for the afforestation of

agricultural land through initiatives such as the Farm Woodland

Scheme (FWS), the Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS), and the Farm

Woodland Premium Scheme (FWPS).Since 2000, European Union support for the rural sector has

been delivered through two main mechanisms. Pillar I involves

support for agriculture and Pillar II provides support for ruraldevel-

opment, including agri-environmental interventions. In 2003, the

CAP reformed key agricultural subsidies under Pillar I (such as the

Arable AreaPaymentand the Beefand SheepPremiums in England),

which were linkedto production with a SingleFarm Payment (SFP).

This payment was not linked to a particular type of production, but

did require cross-compliance, an adherence to EU environmen-

tal, food safety, animal welfare standards and regulations, and the

need to keep farmland in Good Agricultural and Environmental

Condition. This is defined at a national level, andincludes soil pro-

tection, maintenance of soil organic matter and soil structure, and

maintenance of habitats and the landscape.

Agricultural commodity prices, and the incentives for agricul-

tural production in the UK, are now largely determined by world

market conditions and farm and rural income support is decou-

pled from farm production levels. This shouldprevent thewasteful

and inefficientbuild-up of agricultural surpluses whichbroughtthe

CAP into disrepute in the 1980s.

Pillar II of the CAP relating to rural development includes

agri-environmental and afforestation measures. Separate rural

development programmes exist for England, Scotland, Wales and

Northern Ireland. Since 2005, the agri-environmental measures

for England include Environment Stewardship which is steadily

replacing the ESA and CS schemes. In England in 2008, 5.3 million

ha were under environmental stewardship, 6 per cent of which

was in the higher tier. The total land area under agri-environment

schemes in theUK wasabout8.7million ha in 2008,compared with

only 175,000ha in 1992.

Over time, the proportion of total agricultural funding allocated

to the Single Farm Payment is being reduced by the modulation

of funds to rural development measures, in other words from Pillar

I to PillarII. Farmers arenow paid to manage their land accordingto

a set of rules,regardless of what or how much is produced on-farm.

This marks a shift in public financial support from the production

of food and fibre to the conservation of natural resources and the

environment.

Agricultural prices, farm incomes and land values

World market agricultural prices have fallen in real terms for

much of thepast70 years,withthe exceptionof shortlivedspikes in

the early-1970s, the early-1990s and more recently the 20072008

period, mainly caused by supplydisruption at a globalscale (Piesse

and Thirtle, 2009). Agricultural prices for UK farmers have mir-

rored these trends, especially since the early-1990s, but have been

modified by the rate of farm support within the European Union.

Fig. 4 shows price trendsfor selected major commodities forthe

UK from 1988 to 2008. Over this period, prices were relatively low

between 1998 and 2004 before the recent price spike (Piesse andThirtle, 2009). Formanyproducts,priceshavereturnedto thelevels

experiencedin early- to mid-1990s, when prices increased because

of a weak pound relative tothe currency of other EU competitors,as

well as strong food demand from Asia (Defra, 2009b; USDA, 2009).

The combination of a stronger pound, falling demand in the wake

of the Asian financial crisis and a liberalisation of EU agriculture

combined to depress prices from the late-1990s until 2005.

Fig. 5 shows how farm incomes have been affected

by price variations, showing volatility around a gener-

ally declining trend. In 2008, Total Income from Farming

Fig. 4. UK agricultural price index for selected products 19882008. Source: Defra

(2008c).


6/13


Fig. 5. Total Income from Farming (TIFF) 19732008. Source: Defra (2009a,b,c).

(TIFF) was about 60 per cent lower in real terms than

in 1973.

Recent changes in the value of land

Agricultural land prices tend to reflect the profitability of farm-

ing, including the effects of subsidies and income support. But in

recent years, distortions in UK land markets have kept agricultural

land prices at levels much higher than their agricultural income

earning capacity would imply. Factors at work here include lim-

ited offerings of land for sale (typically less than 0.2 per cent of

the total land area each year), strong demand for small parcels

of agricultural land from urban dwellers, and tax advantages

of land ownership. Fig. 6 shows how the sale value of agricul-

tural land rose in the early-1990s during a period of relatively

favourable commodity prices (Fig. 4) and farm incomes (Fig. 5)

but levelled off and remained stable between 1996 and 2004,

even during this period of unprecedented low prices and incomes.

Where agricultural land included a house, the value per hectare

of that land increased by 60 per cent between 1995 and 2004(Fig. 6).

More recently, the value of agricultural land in England and

Wales has more than doubled between 2004 and 2009 (Fig. 7),

partly in response to recent increases in food commodity prices

and farming profits. In 2009, prices for agricultural land in Eng-

land and Wales with vacant possession are about 13,00015,000

per hectare for arable land, reflecting the presence of keen local

buyers as much as the quality of agricultural land. RICS (2009)

reported an increase in 2008 in the number of purchases of land

by adjacent family managed farms in order to maintain economies

Fig. 6. Agricultural land values in England (19932004) at 2007 prices (Defra,

2008c).

Fig.7. Value of freeholddairy, arableand hillland withoutbuildings in Englandand

Wales (Valuation Office Agency, 2009).

of scale and benefit from the exemption of farm land from

inheritance tax.

Power relations in UK food and farming

In analysing competition in particular industries, Porter (1998)

identifies five sources of competition. The key areas in the agri-

cultural supply chain relate to the buyer power of consumers and

supermarkets, the power of agricultural supply companies, inter-

national competition including the role of biofuels, new entrants,

and rivalry between existing agricultural businesses (Fig. 8).

Buyer power

The final buyers of agricultural products are consumers. How-

ever, their choices are increasingly mediated through a limited

number of supermarkets. The generic demand for food in the UK

is relatively unresponsive to changes in prices, it is price inelas-

tic (Lechene, 1999; Tiffin and Tiffin, 1999) (Table 6). Price changes,

whether up or down, bring about proportionately small changes in

the quantity of food purchased. For instance, a 1 per cent increase

in the price of fresh fruit would cause an 0.29 per cent fall in

the quantity demanded. Conversely, a 3.4 per cent fall in price

(1/0.29) is needed to raise demand by 1 per cent. Because of this

relatively constant and inelastic demand, farmers can experience

considerable variation in prices and incomes, for example when

year-on-year changes in weather patterns affect production. Oscil-

lating and unstablefood prices, and the importance of securing food

supplies for Britains industrial workforce, were the main reasons

for the Government introducing Agricultural Marketing Boards in

the 1930s.

The demand for food is also income inelastic, that is, expendi-

ture on raw food as a whole does not keep pace with increases inincome. Drawing on the Household Food Survey, Lechene (1999)

suggests that a 1 per cent increase in average income will increase

Fig. 8. Five competitive forces within in the UK agricultural land use sector.


7/13


Table 6

Own price, income and cross-price elasticities of demand for selected food products consumed in UK homes.

Own price

elasticity

Income

elasticity

Cross-price elasticitya

Carcase

meat

Other meat and

meat products

Milk and

cream

Bread Fresh

fruit

Fresh green

vegetables

Carcase meat 0.69 0.2 0.26 0.05 0.12 0.17 0.11

Other meat and meat products 0.52 0.19 0.53 0.14 0.11 0.11 0

Milk and cream

0.36 0.05 0.04 0.38

0.14

0.27

0.02Bread 0.4 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.1 0.05

Fresh fruit 0.29 0.3 0.11 0.03 0.14 0.1 0.04

Fresh green vegetables 0.66 0.27 0.02 0 0 0.02 0.01

aFor entries under cross-price elasticity: entry on a row is the cross-price elasticity with respect to the good in the column. For instance, the cross-price elasticity of carcase

meatin respect to other meatand meatproducts is 0.26. A positivecoefficient indicatesthat a productacts asa substitute foranother; forinstance, anincreasein carcase meat

pricecauses people to switch to consumptionof other meats andmeat products.A negativecoefficientfor cross-priceelasticity indicatesthat theproducts arecomplimentary;

where the goods are consumed together. For instance, an increase in price causes a decline in quantity demanded (source: Lechene, 1999).

total food demand by 0.2 per cent. But the increase in demand

will not be uniform across all categories of foods and all income

levels (Defra, 2008e). Low-income households tend to buy more

bread and cereals, milk, cheese and eggs, sugar and confectionery

but less meat, vegetables, fruit and other foods than more affluent

families. Increased average income, together with increased food

choices and changing tastes and lifestyles, were associated with a30 per cent fall in milk and dairy consumption over the past 30

years (Defra, 2008b). Bread purchases have decreased by 15 per

cent and fresh potatoes by 27 per cent in the past 10 years ( Defra,

2008b) while purchases of fruit and vegetables have increased by

8 per cent over the same period. Quantities of fruit and vegetables

purchased by all households and by low-income households have

both risen by 9 per cent since 2001 (Defra, 2006c).

Similarly, fresh red meat sales have fallen by 40 per cent over

the past 30 years, but have remained steady over the past decade.

This reflects theimpact of changing food tastesand lifestyles. There

have been large fluctuations in the type of meat bought because of

health concerns, such as BSE, but in general meat consumption has

remained relativelysteady.The majorchange has been the increase

in poultry consumption, whichhas surpassedconsumption of othermeats in the UK since 2000 (Foster and Lunn, 2007). Recent con-

cerns about the growing incidence of obesity have prompted calls

for healthier eating, with implications for the balance of livestock,

fruit and vegetables products in the national diet (Foresight, 2007).

Although income elasticity is low for raw, unprocessed food

(Table 6), it is much higher for total food expenditure including the

convenience and recreational components provided by the food

processing and catering sectors. Farmers can offset the disadvan-

tages of the market place for raw, farm-gate food by adding value

by movingup thesupply chain,by undertaking processingor direct

sales themselves, or by focusing on niche, quality produce rather

than bulk produce.

There isalso anincreasing trendtowardsdemand forfoodwhich

meets high ethical standards and animal welfare considerations,which protects the environment, and which respects the rights

of people involved in food production, particularly in developing

nations. Defra (2007) shows an increasing demand between 2000

and 2007 for local food and for food from organic, free range and

other systems orientated to animal welfare, as well as for fair trade

foods. Over a third of sales of ethical foods are now organic. Sales

of organic foods increased by nearly 20 per cent between 2005 and

2006 to a market value of 1.7 billion (NFU, 2008). It is unclear as

yet how these trends will affect aggregate land use, but increas-

ing quantities of organic and food from animal welfare systems

wouldrequiremore landthan conventional agricultural production

systems because of relatively lower yields.

A number of changing demographic factors, some of them

counteracting each other, could influence future demand for food

(National Statistics, 2009). Increased participation in the workforce

by women, decreasinghouseholdsize and more individualistic eat-

ing patterns are driving demand for convenience foods and meals

with smaller portions (Buckley et al., 2007). Conversely, an age-

ing population with more pensioners who have low incomes but

plenty of time to cook, could increase the demand for raw food

and for cheaper options. Renewed connectedness between peo-ple and food has increased interest in local foods, encouraging

farmers markets, and a resurgence in allotments and urban agri-

culture. Concerns about rising food prices, however, does not fit

comfortably with the finding that 30 per cent of food purchased

by households is thrown away, and that most this waste (19 per

cent of purchases) could have been avoided (WRAP, 2008; Cabinet

Office, 2008). Losses in the catering sector and the food chain

as a whole would increase this estimate of total loss ( Lundqvist,

2008).

Over thepasttwo decades, marketpower hasmovedfromfarms

to the retail sector and consumers (IAASTD, 2009). Large super-

markets have delivered increasing convenience and choice to the

sector. The number of product lines in supermarkets has increased

from about 5000 in the 1970s to over 40,000 currently (Foster andLunn, 2007). They have taken an increasing share of the UK food

market (Frances and Garnsey, 1996; FAO, 2005), out-competing

smaller and more specialist food retailers. Defra (2006c) reported

that approximately 75 per cent of food sales were made by super-

markets or superstores and only 7 per cent attributed to small

traditional stores. The supermarket sector is also highly concen-

trated. Four companies account for approximately 74 per cent of

all supermarket food sales.

As a consequence, large supermarkets exert significant power

over their suppliers, including farmers (Dobson et al., 2003). The

OECD (2006) explained the process of retail market capture and

cited several practices that supermarkets use to exert market

power, such as changes in contract conditions at short notice,

breaches in contract, late payments and buy-back clauses forunsold products. Lloyd and Morgan (2007) concluded that these

practices cause supermarket and farming profit margins to diverge.

In 1988, farmers received 47 per cent of the final market value

of retailed fresh foods, but by 2008 this had fallen to 37 per cent

(Defra, 2008c). However, others point to an improvement in the

relationships associated with dedicated supply chains, such as

supermarket-operated quality assurance and traceability schemes

for livestock and vegetable produce. The share of farm-gate output

in thefinalretail price of differentforms of food is also variable,typ-

ically being 4051 per cent for most fruits and vegetables, 4750

per cent for beef and lamb, and 35per cent for milk (Defra, 2008c).

Crude price comparisons can also be misleading because differ-

ent amounts of resources are committed to marketing different

products and adding value to them.


8/13


McCulloughet al. (2008), WorldBank (2007) and IAASTD (2009)

report that the dominance of supermarkets in the agri-food chain

for high-value produce tends to favour larger producers. In some

cases, farmers have responded to the dominance of supermarkets

by creating co-operative groups, farmer wholesale companies or

larger farm enterprises. This is likely to encourage further increases

in average farm size or more collaborative ventures, as produc-

ers seek economies of scale in production, and in the case of fresh

produce, economies of marketinginto the supermarket-dominated

supply chain.

Rivalry between agricultural producers

Withalmost 200,000farmersproducingmainly bulk,low-value,

high volume, high transportcost, commodities, thereis little rivalry

between producers themselves. Most rivalry is associated with

gaining and maintaining market outlets to supermarkets and pro-

cessors for high-value produce. There is also rivalry at the national

scale between domestic production and imports.

New entrants

Competition from new entrants in the agriculturalsector is low.

The returns from agricultural production do not justify the invest-

ment in purchasing or renting agricultural land. In fact the issue is

not competition from new entrants into the sector, but the loss of

commercial farmers and agricultural land from it. Existing farmers

can find it attractive to release the capital in their land by sell-

ing it for non-agricultural uses such as housing development, or

converting it for amenity use such as paddocks for horses.

Supplier power

Agriculture is a primary industry and is less exposed to changes

in input costs than many other industries. However, the profitabil-

ity of some sectors, pig and poultry production in particular, is

dependent on the supply of cheap animal feed. In the past century,

agriculture has also become reliant on cheap energy, for run-

ning agricultural machinery and for nitrogen fertiliser production.

Between 2005 and 2008, prices for fertilisers and soil improvers inthe UK increased by 270 per cent (Defra, 2009c), in part a result of

high energy prices but also because of a lack of competition in the

domestic fertiliser supply sector.

A long-term increase in the price of fossil fuel will affect the

viability of current energy-intensive farming systems that are

dependent on large inputs of inorganic fertilisers and pesticides,

on andthe use of farm machinery. Energyefficiencyconsiderations

may encourage less intensive farming systems and lower yields,

implying greater agricultural land use to maintain total agricultural

output (Sustainable Development Commission, 2007).

International competition

A key consideration for UK agricultural land use is the capacity

of UK agriculture to compete on the international market. Systemsthat are internationally competitive can secure additional income

from selling in international markets; systems that are not com-

petitive are likely to face competition from imports. Since 2002,

the Common Agricultural Policy has sought to make EU, including

UK, agriculture internationally competitive, while simultaneously

ensuring food security though a balance of domestic and foreign

sourcing.

Atthe globalscale, demandfor food is closely linkedto increases

in the economic prosperityof populations. Between 2004and 2006,

22 of the worlds 34 most food-insecure countries experienced

gross domestic product increases of 516 per cent (IFPRI, 2007),

with a resulting shift from basic staples such as cereals to more var-

ied, protein-rich diets, especially vegetables, fruits, meat, dairyand

fish. Between 19641966 and 19971999, consumption of meat

per capita developing countries increased by 150 per cent, and of

milk and dairy products by 60 per cent (FAO, 2005). Milk and dairy

consumption is expected to rise by 1 per cent per year through

to 2019 (Trostle, 2008). By 2030, it is forecast that per capita con-

sumption of livestock products could rise by a further 44 per cent

from current levels(WHO,2003). But demand for otheragricultural

commodities could decline. IFPRI (2007) predicts that as incomes

increase in South Asia, there will be a 4 per cent decline in rice

consumption between 2000 and 2050, while the consumption of

vegetables is projectedto increase by 70per cent, andconsumption

of meat, eggs, and fish is projected to double.

The growing global demand for meat products has implications

for the grain and protein feed markets. Trostle (2008) suggests

that producing 1 kg of chicken, pork and beef requires to 2.6, 6.5

and 7 kg of maize feed, respectively. So the increase in demand

for meat will have far-reaching consequences for the demand for

cereals and coarse grains for animal feeds. Analysis suggests that

other countries and regions than the UK may have comparative

advantagesin the production of bulkagriculturalcommoditiessuch

as wheat, plant oils and beef. However, these potentials may be

threatened by climate change, and the UK may be able to gain

advantage in markets that differentiate on food quality rather than

price. Strong international prices for commodities could maintain

a high demand for land use for agriculture in the UK, in substi-

tuting for expensive imports and in supplying high-value, locally

sourced, quality-assured products. Participating in such markets

will require high levels of knowledge, skills and technology in UK

farming systems.

A key factor in the international market for food is the impact

of bio-energy. The EU and the US both have targets for the mini-

mum proportion of conventional road transport fuel to be met by

renewable sources (Sugden, 2009; Somma et al., in press). Several

studies have estimated the amount of land required to achieve the

EU renewable transport fuel target of 10 per cent. Upham et al.

(2009) estimated that meeting biofuel targets with oilseed rape

would need 600,000 ha of current agricultural land and an addi-

tional 840,000ha of land which is now unused. To meet thesetargets from a sugar beet feedstock would require 10 per cent

of UK arable land and from straw would require 45 per cent of

UK arable land. There appears to be a direct link between biofuel

demand and the price of crude oil, creating a trade-off between

food and fuel production (Senauer, 2008). Fossil fuel prices are

expected to increase in real terms in future, thus maintaining the

demand for biofuels (Davis, 2009). However, it is likely that atten-

tion will switch from conventional crops to second generation

biomass crops such as miscanthus and willow, much of which can

be grown on poorer land, although they can be water-intensive

(Cannell, 2005).

Forecasts for land use

The sections above have reviewed the main drivers of UK agri-

cultural change, citing evidence of the way in which they have

shaped current land use and how they may change land use in

the future. The main issue is an emerging conflict over agricul-

tural land use forfood, fuel andecosystemservices. There aresome

complementarities in the production of these separate outputs, but

competition is more commonly the case, and it will be necessaryto

establish the significant trade-offs. However, it is difficult to pre-

dict the future conditions for agriculture. The prices of all main

commodities have shown much volatility in recent years (Fig. 9).

FAO and OECD (2008) forecasts suggest that the prices for the UKs

major agricultural products will remain strong to 2017 (Fig. 9).

This reflects growing food andfuel demand andgovernment policy


9/13


Fig. 9. World price for wheat, oilseed, and butter as recorded from 1992 to 2008

by OECD-FAO, and from 2009 to 2018 as predicted by OECD-FAO in January 2009

(OECD, 2009).

interventions thathave reduced supply but enhanced environmen-

tal protection. Overall, long-term prices are predicted to remain

about 2530 per cent higher than 20032006 international lev-

els. Therefore, it is reasonable to predict a future where there is

strong demand for agricultural products, and where demand for

ecosystemservices including forestry production is also increasing.

Agriculture, multi-functionality and ecosystems

It is recognised that agricultures role in society extends beyond

theproduction of food andfibre andthat agriculturalpractices pro-

duce food alongside cultural and environmental services as joint

products (Hodge, 2007). Specifically, agriculture provides man-agement (for better or for worse) of renewable natural resources,

regulates hydrological flows, enhances landscape aesthetics, con-

serves biodiversity, and contributes towards the socio-economic

viability of rural areas (Renting et al., 2009). Many of these

services are not priced and appropriately valued within mar-

ket economies, and consequently such public goods must be

supported by government intervention. For this reason, policies

such as the agri-environment schemes discussed earlier, have

been devised to pay farmers for producing these valuable ser-

vices.

In this context, the multifunctional role of agriculture has

become a political issue, seen by some as a useful means of ensur-

ing the supply of important countryside goods, and by others as a

dubious mechanismfor covertly subsidising agriculture (Potter and

Tilsey, 2007). EU payments to farmers for the provision of a range

of countryside services, and the concept of multi-functionality,

have found resonance among some participants within the World

Trade Organization debate on agricultural market liberalisation. It

is expected that EU and UK policy will continue to target financial

support for agricultural practices that deliver countryside services,

rather than subsidising food and fibre production.

The concept of multifunctional agriculture accords with the

recognition that environmental policy needs to take an ecosys-

tems approach (Defra, 2007). Attempts to produce environmental

accounts for agriculture in the UK confirm the range of positive

and negative externalimpacts thatagriculture has on the environ-

ment (Prettyet al., 2000; Hartridge andPearce, 2001;Environment

Agency, 2002; Eftec, 2004). Estimatesfor 2007(JSACCU, 2008) show

that UK agriculture generatesa netpositive environmental value of

around 650 million per year, although this probably significantly

underestimates the value of managed landscapes. But agriculture

is also associated with damage from greenhouse gas emissions

estimated at 2.07 billion per year, or 37 per capita of the UK

population. Future UK government and EU policies are likely to

financially reward the provision of ecosystems by an incentives

approach to public good provision, and punish the production of

negative externalities such as pollutionand natural resource degra-

dation by punitive polluter-pays taxes.

Future agricultural land use: the case of England and Wales

A number of studies have explored alternative futures for agri-

culture in the UK, with implications for land use. An example of

how farming and land use could change as a result of changes

in the drivers affecting the demand for agricultural commodities

and land management is contained in Morris et al. (2005). Possible

future scenarios for agriculture in England and Wales were drawn

up through to 2050. These were based on those used by the Fore-

sight Programme (Berkhout andHertin, 2002; OST, 2002), in which

futures are distinguished in terms of social values and governance.

Four scenarios, World Markets (WM), Global Sustainability (GS),National Enterprise (NE) and Local Stewardship (LS) were used

to define possible agricultural futures, recognising the dominant

influence of the agricultural policy regime as a key driver of agri-

cultural change (Table 7). A Business as Usual case was included

to represent a continuation of the existing regime.

Informed by an analysis of historical trends, and drawing on lit-

erature andexpert opinion (Sylvester-Bradley and Wiseman, 2005;

Morris et al., 2005), estimates of crop and livestock yields were

derived for the scenarios. Commodity prices, the use of production

inputs including management expertise, farm size, and the adop-

tionof genetechnologywere allassumedto be positivelycorrelated

with yields, whereas input prices, environmental regulation, adop-

tion of organics and business uncertainty were perceived to have

a negative association with yields. These influencing factors were

Table 7

Links between foresight and agricultural policy scenarios.

Foresight scenario Agricultural policy scenario Intervention regime

Business as Usual (BAU) Baseline Moderate: Existing price and income support, export subsidies, with selected

agri-environment schemes

World Markets (WM) World Agricultural Markets (without CAP) Zero: Free trade: no intervention: entirely market-driven

Global Sustainability (GS) Global Sustainable Agriculture (Reformed CAP) Low: Market orientation with targeted sustainability compliance

requirements and programmes

National Enterprise (NE) National Agricultural Markets (Similar to pre-reform CAP) Moderate to High: Price support and protection to serve national and local

priorities for self-sufficiency, limited environmental concern

Local Stewardship (LS) Local Community Agriculture High: Locally defined support schemes reflecting local priorities for food

production, incomes and environment

Source: Morris et al. (2005).


10/13


Table 8

Estimated change in demand for agricultural commodities to be met from domestic sources for a Business as Usual (BAU) and four contrasting governance and social value

scenarios for 2050 (2002 = 100).

Scenario

BAU World Market Global Sustainability National Enterprise Local Stewardship

Wheat 117 98 137 142 129

Barley 112 93 113 134 103

Oilseed rape 172 153 212 186 184Sugar beet 80 67 70 134 120

Potatoes 98 82 108 156 146

Peas 38 9 22 124 185

Beans 38 9 22 124 185

Beef 134 119 106 155 135

Dairy (milk) 102 81 104 115 142

Sheep meat 118 140 119 174 119

Pork 130 161 213 180 151

Chicken meat 131 144 151 147 131

Source: Morris et al. (2005).

then mapped out for each scenario. Scenario assumptions were

also developed for the major drivers of demand such as changes

in demographics and income, dietary trends, and demand for bio-

energy.

The resulting estimates of demand for agricultural commoditiesto be met from domestic sources in 2050, inclusive of bio-energy

crops, are shown in Table 8, expressed as a percentage of those for

2002. It is noted that demand for domestic produce is lower under

the BAU and WM scenarios than in others, although details vary,

reflecting the greater proportion of imports.

The analysis provides a number of useful insights. Land use

modelling involving an optimisation process (Annetts and Audsley,

2002) derived commodity prices that are sufficiently attractive to

farmers to balance domestic demand and domestic supply, assum-

ing likely levels of imports for each scenario. As expected, prices

arehigher under scenarioswhichhave thegreatestprotectionfrom

imports anda high degreeof self-sufficiency. Commodityprices for

cereals, oil seeds and sugar beet are generally higher where energy

crops are included in scenarios than when they are not. Quantitiesand prices for protein crops fall as a consequence of competition

from oil seed residues in animal feed markets. Under BAU, because

of increased yields and increased imports, cereal prices fall to 60

per cent of 20022004 prices, and sugar beet prices are more than

halved. For the assumed WM scenario, there is a long-term decline

in most commodity prices in the face of competition from imports.

The GS scenario shows moderate increases in demand for cere-

als and oil seeds relative to the current situation and BAU. As a

consequence, prices are strong, increasing by 50 per cent in the

case of cereals. The demand for oilseed rape cannot be met from

domestic sources. Under NE, there is strong demand for a broad

range of commodities to be met from domestic sources. Under LS,

prices are high because of persistent supply deficits in cereals and

oil seeds, mainly attributable to low yields. It is likely there wouldbe pressure to increase yields or imports.

These possible futures have major implications for land use.

Fig. 10 shows the proportion of total potentially suitable land that

is used for intensive farming under the future scenarios for 2050

compared with the current (2002) case (Fig. 10 includes energy

cropping). Land requirements vary between scenarios. Land use

declines as a percentage of current land use under WM, BAU and

NE.It falls to65 percentof current useunderthe WMscenario,with

the greatest release of land in areas currently dominated by cereal

production and grassland for dairying. However, there is insuffi-

cient land to meet the demand for agricultural commodities under

GS and LS, partly because of high demand for energy crops under

GS, and the relatively low yields under LS. Pressure on land in the

lowlands puts pressure on the uplands, which deliver that part of

domestic demandfor livestock products that is notmet by thelow-

land sector. Stocking rates in the uplands typically fall by 3050

per cent in some regions under scenarios such as WM, which also

resultin a release of lowland farmland.Under LS,however, a short-

age of capacity in the lowlands increases pressure on the uplandsand leads to a theoretical doubling of upland stocking rates.

The results of this horizon-scanning exercise must be treated

with caution. But they show how future land use and the inten-

sity of land management could vary with changes in national and

global circumstances thataffect the demand for,and supply of, agri-

cultural products, as well as the other services provided by land.

Recent policy changes suggest a move towards the Global Sus-

tainability scenario, which promotes internationally competitive

agriculture which has a commitment to the protection of the envi-

ronment, as well as to vulnerable rural communities. With high

international prices for food, and an increase in domestic biofuel

production, this scenario suggests a continuedhigh demandfor the

use of land for farming in the UK.

Other views on future land use

There are a limited number of studies that project the pat-

tern of future UK agricultural land use. Centre for Rural Economics

Research (2004) used literature review and expert judgement to

estimate the likely changes in agricultural land use across England

and Wales to 2015 under a Business as Usual Scenario but allowing

for the Agenda 2000 reforms. Broadly it predicted that the area of

agricultural land would decline by 3 per cent in England and Wales

Fig. 10. Effect of Business as Usual (BAU) and four other social and governance

scenariosWorld Markets(WM), NationalEnterprise(NE), Global Sustainability (GS)

andLocalStewardship(LS)on theproportionof lowlandagricultural landin England

and Wales required for agricultural production in 2050 (after Morris et al., 2005).


11/13


between 2002 and 2015. Within this, there would be a 10 and 2

per cent reduction of temporary and permanentgrassland, respec-

tively. Theagricultural area is projectedto decrease over theperiod

in all regions, but most quickly in the South East (5 per cent) and

Eastern regions (3 per cent) and slowest in the North East (2 per

cent) and Yorkshire and Humber (2.5 per cent).

The same reportpredicted a reductionin outputfrom most live-

stock sectors. The beef herd was reduced by 15 per cent between2002 and 2015, and dairy production declined by 20 per cent over

the period. Pig and sheep numbers were down over the period by

10 and 6 per cent, respectively. Only poultry numbers were pro-

jected to increase, by 8 per cent. In terms of crops, wheat and oats

production were projected to increase by 11 and 2 per cent, with

all other cereals remaining stable across the period. The area of

protein crops was predicted to remain constant. Potato outputwas

projected to decrease by 10 per cent while oilseed rape and maize

output were projected to increase by 15 and 30 per cent. There

was a projected fall in the output of most horticultural crops by 20

per cent over the period, with field vegetable output 19 per cent

down and fruit down by 20 per cent. Farm woodland is projected

to increase by 17 per cent.

Other projections of the long-term land use implications of

agricultural change have been made at a European scale. These

have mostly been scenario-based studies, which have attempted

to project possible land use patterns under different trajectories

of socio-economic and environmental development. Several stud-

ies have used the SRES scenarios (similar to those described in

Table 6), which include a set of qualitative descriptors devel-

oped by the IPCC (2001). Rounsevell et al. (2005) and Ewart et

al. (2005) both used these scenarios in combination with a sim-

ple supply/demand model which calculates land use change given

relative changes in the demand for agricultural commodities and

the productivity of agriculture. This approach was based on a set

of assumptions regarding climate change, economic development

and agricultural technologyadvancement.The model findings from

Ewart et al. (2005) predicted that at the EU level, increases in pro-

ductivitywouldoutstripgrowth in demand. Based on these results,Rounsevell et al. (2005) projected that large areas of land would be

taken outof agriculturalproduction,with surplus land moving into

urban, forestry and recreational uses. They view this as being con-

sistent with previous land use trends, where, even with subsidies,

the area of agricultural land in Europe decreased by 13 per cent

between 1960 and 2000.

Studies by Meijl et al. (2006) and Eickhout et al. (2007) use the

GTAP econometric model to determine land use change across the

EU under the SRES scenarios. They found that the area of arable

land decreased under scenarios depicting liberalised agriculture.

This area remained stable over the period where CAP offered some

protection to agricultural production. Land moves from arable

to livestock production in the liberalised scenarios, as demand

fromdevelopingcountries incentivisesthe production of meat. Thestudy concluded that the loss of agricultural land would be minor,

although there would be a relative shift in the profitability of some

sectors. Arable land could be used for biofuel production, main-

taining livelihoods in this sector, while liberalisation could cause a

collapse in the EU sugar sector.

A modelling exercise by Verburg et al. (2006) used the SRES

scenarios to predict land use change, this time for the period

20002030. They predicted a high level of abandonment of agri-

cultural land in the future, ranging from 2.5 to 13 per cent of the

agricultural area of the EU-15 in 2000. This abandonment was

more pronounced for the scenarios where agriculture is exposed

to a liberalised world market. This loss would be more pronounced

near large urban conurbations, where there is pressure for urban

growth.

The general findings from this range of forecasting studies

are that land in the UK will continue to move out of agricul-

ture, because of demands for other uses or because some types

of farming are no longer viable. However, this outlook depends on

demands from the global market and the viability of farming. Most

horizon-scanning studies, conducted before the global food price

spikes of 20072008, predicted some degree of agricultural land

abandonment in the UK and EU under a liberalised world market

regime, in response to falling real prices for raw food. But they

also recognise that higher commodity prices might arise, caused

by strong global demand for food and biofuels, and possible con-

straints on some typesof intensivefarming.Under such conditions,

there could be strong demand for agricultural land in the UK, pro-

ducing for domestic needs or for export. As we mentioned above,

more recent FAO/OECD forecasts predict strengthening food and

bio-energy prices over the next 15 years or so. These could pro-

vide sufficient incentives for UK farmers, especially those with

comparative advantage in relatively large scale, intensive farming

systems.

Conclusions

This review has argued that future land use in the UK is likely

to be shaped by two main forces: agricultural and environmental

policy and the market for agricultural and food products. There

may in future be a clearer distinction between agricultural policy

and rural environment policy.

It seems likely that future policy will be mainly directed to non-

market issues of natural resource and environmental protection

and the provision of environmental services. Future food produc-

tion and its associated land use pattern will be largely determined

by economic forces operating in the food market and the price

signals they send. Given reform of the CAP and the decoupling of

support fromfarm production, additional foodproduction in the UK

and elsewhere in Europe will probably be stimulated by the mar-

ketrather than by policy. In this respect, EU farmers will respond tochanges in product prices, input prices and profitability opportu-

nities, and the aggregate impact of their behaviour will determine

whether crop and livestock outputs increase, fall or remain con-

stant.

Policy will primarily be directed to environmental impacts,

including the need to meet demanding targets for improved water

quality, atmospheric pollution containment and biodiversity. The

key contemporary concerns of climate change, sustainability,

maintenance of the natural resource base and future food secu-

rity should be seen in this context. Food security, self-sufficiency

and import penetration will be driven by forces operating in

global food and agricultural markets. Environmental targets will

be achieved by largely non-market, EU and UK government pol-

icy.Policywillalsoaffectlanduse viathe technologiesusedin future

agricultural production (see Burgess and Morris, in press). Future

farming will be determined in part by technology which, in turn,

depends upon Research and Development (R&D). Investment in

R&D will continue to be made in both the public and private sec-

tors. Theformer is mainly drivenby publicinterestin topicssuch as

environmental protection, food quality and food safety, and the lat-

ter by business opportunities.Decisions madetoday in private- and

publicly-funded research organisations have an important influ-

ence on the technologies which will be available to farmers in the

future.

It will probably continue to be a valid use of public funds to

maintain and develop the knowledge and technological capacity

that UK agriculture needs to cope with climate changeor food secu-


12/13


rity. For example, the permissible roles and regulation of GM crops

and of pesticide use could have important impacts on land use (see

Burgess and Morris, in press).

A range of plausiblefutures each have their ownimplications for

the role of agriculture and rural land management. Much depends

on a combination of UK national demographic and economic fac-

tors, and on global conditions as they shape the incentives to

farmers in the UK. It seems likely that over the next 50 years, the

UKs land area will be required to deliver an increasingly diverse

range of private and public goods to meet growing human needs

and aspirations. This will require a balance of policy-driven goals

and market-driven forces. In particular it will require a much

improved understanding of the trade-offs between foodproduction

and environmental goals, and of the institutional arrangements

required to achieve a balance of economic, social and environmen-

tal outcomes.

References

Annetts, J., Audsley, E., 2002. Multiple objective linear programming for environ-mental farm planning. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 53, 933943.

Berkhout, F., Hertin, J., 2002. Foresight Futures Scenarios: Developing and Apply-

ing a Participative Strategic Planning Tool. Science and Policy Research Unit.University of Sussex, Brighton.Body, R., 1982. Agriculture: The Triumph and The Shame. Temple Smith, London.Buckley, M., Cowan, C., McCarthy, M., 2007. The convenience food market in Great

Britain: convenience food lifestyle (CFL) segments. Appetite 49, 600617.Burgess, P.,Morris,J., in press. Agricultural technology andland usefutures: theUK

case. Foresight Land Use Futures Sci. Rev.Cabinet Office, 2008. Government Sets Out 21st Century Challenges for

Food in the UK, http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news releases/2008/080707 food report.aspx Accessed 11/09/2009.

Cannell, M., 2005. Carbon sequestration and biomass energy offset: theoretical,potential and achievable capcities globally, in Europe and the UK. BiomassBioenergy 24, 97116.

Centre forRural EconomicsResearch,2004.Businessas Usual Projections of Agricul-tural Outputs. Final report to theEnvironmentAgency. University of Cambridge.

Davis, J., 2009. Biofuels and agriculture: a new paradigm. Eurochoices 8, 45.Defra, 2002. Economic Conditions on Cattle and Sheep Farms in the Hills

and Uplands of the United Kingdom, https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/hfr/econd hfr.pdfAccessed 18/08/2009.

Defra, 2006a. Sustainable Food and Farming Strategy: Forward Look, http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/pdf/sffs-fwd-060718.pdfAccessed, 27/07/09.

Defra, 2006b. Food Security and the UK: An Evidence and Analysis Paper,https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/foodsecurity/foodsecurity.pdfAccessed 27/07/09.

Defra, 2006c. Economic Note on UK Grocery Retailing, https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/Groceries%20paper%20May%202006.pdf Accessed22/7/09.

Defra, 2007. Ecosystems Approach Action Plan, http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/natural-environ/eco-actionplan.htm Accessed, 27/07/09.

Defra, 2008a. June Survey of Agriculture and Horticulture (Land Use, Livestockand Labour on Agricultural Holdings at 1 June 2008), https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/statnot.htmAccessed 17/07/2009.

Defra, 2008b. Agriculture in the English Regions 2007, https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/statnot.htmAccessed 17/07/2009.

Defra, 2008c. Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2008, https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/auk/2008/default.aspAccessed, 17/06/2009.

Defra, 2008d. Organic Statistics England,https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/orgeng.pdf Accessed 17/07/2009.

Defra, 2008e. Food Statistics Pocketbook 2008, https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/pocketstats/foodpocketstats/default.asp Accessed18/06/2009.

Defra, 2009a. Farm Accounts in England 2007/08: Results of the FarmBusiness Survey, https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/fab/2008/FAE.pdfAccessed 24/07/09.

Defra, 2009b. The Effects of Weak Sterling on Food Prices, Farm Incomes andFood Trade, https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/Monthly%20brief/AnnexATheeffectsofweaksterlingonfoodprices,farmincomesandfoodtrade.pdfAccessed 18/08/2009.

Defra,2009c. API: Index of thePurchase Pricesof theMeans of Agricultural Produc-tion: Annual Data, https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/agrindexns.htm Accessed14/09/2009.

Dobson, P., Waterson, M., Davies, S., 2003. The patternsand implications of increas-ing concentration in European food retailing. J. Agric. Econ. 54, 111125.

Eftec, 2004. Framework for Environmental Accounts for Agriculture, http://www.eftec.co.uk/publicationsLink.php?s=60&np=19 Accessed 18/08/2009.

Eickhout, B., Meijl, H., Tabeau, A., Rheenen, T., 2007. Economic and ecological con-

sequences of four European land use scenarios. Land Use Policy 24, 562575.

Environment Agency, 2002. Agriculture and Natural Resources: Benefits, Costs andPotential Solutions. Environment Agency, Bristol.

Eurostat, 2009. KeyStatisticson Europe,http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITYOFFPUB/KS-EI-08-001/EN/KS-EI-08-001-EN.PDF Accessed 17/06/2009.

Ewart, F., Rounsevell, M., Reginster, Metzger, Leemans, R., 2005. Future scenarios ofEuropeanagricultural landuse I. Estimatingchanges in cropproductivity. Agric.Ecosyst. Environ. 107, 101116.

FAO, 2005. The Implications of Supermarket Development for HorticulturalFarmers and Traditional Marketing Systems in Asia, http://www.fao.org/ag/ags/subjects/en/agmarket/docs/asia sups.pdfAccessed 22/07/09.

FAO, OECD, 2008. Agricultural Outlook 2008-1017, http://www.fao.org/es/ESC/common/ecg/550/en/AgOut2017E.pdf Accessed 17/06/2009.

Fennell, R., 1997. The Common Agricultural Policy: Continuity and Change. Claren-don Press, Oxford.

Foresight, 2007. Tackling Obesities: Future Choices, http://www.foresight.gov.uk/OurWork/ActiveProjects/Obesity/Obesity.asp Accessed 14/09/2009.

Foster, R., Lunn, J., 2007. 40th anniversary briefing paper: food availability and ourchanging diet. Br. Nutr. Found. Nutr. Bull. 32, 187249.

Frances, J., Garnsey, E., 1996. Supermarkets and suppliers in the United King-dom: system integration, information and control. Account. Org. Soc. 21,591610.

Hartridge, O., Pearce, D., 2001. Is UK Agriculture Sustainable? EnvironmentallyAdjusted Economic Accounts for UK Agriculture. CSERGEEconomics Paper.

Hodge, I., 2007. Presidential address: the governance of rural land in a liberalisedworld. J. Agric. Econ. 58, 409432.

IAASTD, 2009. Agriculture at a Crossroads, http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=doc library&ItemID=14 Accessed 18/08/2009.

IFPRI, 2007. The World Food Situation: New Driving Forces and Required

Action. International Food Policy Research Institute, http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/fpr/pr18.asp Accessed 27/07/2009.IPCC, 2001. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, http://www.grida.no/

publications/other/ipcc sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/emission/ Accessed 27/07/2009.Jacobs, Scottish Agricultural College and Cranfield University, 2008. Environ-

mental accounts for agriculture. In: Final Report for Defra, Welsh AssemblyGovernment, Scottish Government, and DARDNI, https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/envacc/SFS0601%20EnvAccForAgriculture exec.pdf Accessed27/07/2009.

Lechene, V., 1999. National Food Survey, Section 6. Institute of Fiscal Studies Work-ing Papers, London, pp. 89108.

Lloyd, T., Morgan,W., 2007. Market power in UK retail sector. EuroChoices 6, 2229.Lundqvist,J., 2008. Lossesand wastein theglobalcrisis.Rev.Environ. Sci.Biotechnol.

8, 121123.MAFF, 1968. A Century of Agricultural Statistics; Great Britain, 18661966. HMSO,

UK.MAFF, 1975. Food from our Own Resources. HMSO, London.MAFF, 1989. Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1988. HMSO, London.McCullough, E., Pingali, P., Stamoulis, K., 2008. The Transformation of the Agri-

food Systems: Globalisation, Supply Chains and Smallholder Farms. FAO andEarthscan, London.

Meijl, H., Rheenen, T., Tabeau, A., Eickhout, B., 2006. The impact of differentpolicy environments on agricultural land use. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 114,2138.

Morris, J., 1992. Agricultural land drainage, land use change and economic perfor-mance: experience in the UK. Land Use Policy 3, 185198.

Morris, J., Audsley, E., Wright, I.A., McLeod, J., Pearn, K., Angus, A., Rickard, S., 2005.AgriculturalFutures andImplicationsforthe Environment.MainReport, Techni-cal Report andSupporting Appendices. Defra ResearchProjectIS0209.CranfieldUniversity, Bedford.

National Statistics, 2003. A Century of Labour Market Change: 1900 to 2000,http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/labour market trends/century labourmarket change mar2003.pdfAccessed 12/07/2009.

National Statistics, 2009. Population Change, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=950 Accessed 12/07/08.

Nature Conservancy Council, 1977. Nature Conservationand Agriculture. NCC, Ban-bury.

NFU, 2008. Farming Outlook 1st Quarter. National Farmers Union, Stoneleigh, UK.Normile, A., Price, J., 2004. The United Stated and the European Union: A

Statistical Analysis. USDA, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/WRS0404/WRS0404b.pdf Accessed 12/07/2009.

OECD, 2006. Supermarketsandthe Meat SupplyChain:The EconomicImpactof FoodRetail on Farmers, Processers and Consumers. OECD Committee of Agriculture,France.

OECD, 2009. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2009-2018. OECD Publishing, France.OST, 2002. UK Foresight Futures 2020: Revised Scenarios and Guidance.

Office of Science and Technology, Department for Trade and Industry,London.

Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, 2002. Farming and Food. ASustainable Future. Report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farmingand Food. Cabinet Office.

Piesse,J., Thirtle,C., 2009. Three bubblesand apanic:an explanatoryreviewof recentfood commodity price events. Food Policy 34, 119129.

Porter, M., 1998. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Palgrave MaMillan, UK.Potter, C., Tilsey, M., 2007. Agricultural multifunctionality, environmental sustain-

ability and the WTO: resistance or accommodation to the neoliberal project for

agriculture? Geoforum 38, 12901303.
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2008/080707_food_report.aspxhttp://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2008/080707_food_report.aspxhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/hfr/econd_hfr.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/hfr/econd_hfr.pdfhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/pdf/sffs-fwd-060718.pdfhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/pdf/sffs-fwd-060718.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/foodsecurity/foodsecurity.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/Groceries%20paper%20May%202006.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/Groceries%20paper%20May%202006.pdfhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/natural-environ/eco-actionplan.htmhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/natural-environ/eco-actionplan.htmhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/statnot.htmhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/statnot.htmhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/statnot.htmhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/statnot.htmhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/auk/2008/default.asphttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/auk/2008/default.asphttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/orgeng.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/orgeng.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/pocketstats/foodpocketstats/default.asphttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/pocketstats/foodpocketstats/default.asphttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/fab/2008/FAE.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/fab/2008/FAE.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/Monthly%20brief/AnnexATheeffectsofweaksterlingonfoodprices,farmincomesandfoodtrade.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/Monthly%20brief/AnnexATheeffectsofweaksterlingonfoodprices,farmincomesandfoodtrade.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/agrindexns.htmhttp://www.eftec.co.uk/publicationsLink.php%3Fs=60%26np=19http://www.eftec.co.uk/publicationsLink.php%3Fs=60%26np=19http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-EI-08-001/EN/KS-EI-08-001-EN.PDFhttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-EI-08-001/EN/KS-EI-08-001-EN.PDFhttp://www.fao.org/ag/ags/subjects/en/agmarket/docs/asia_sups.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/ag/ags/subjects/en/agmarket/docs/asia_sups.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/es/ESC/common/ecg/550/en/AgOut2017E.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/es/ESC/common/ecg/550/en/AgOut2017E.pdfhttp://www.foresight.gov.uk/OurWork/ActiveProjects/Obesity/Obesity.asphttp://www.foresight.gov.uk/OurWork/ActiveProjects/Obesity/Obesity.asphttp://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm%3FPage=doc_library%26ItemID=14http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm%3FPage=doc_library%26ItemID=14http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/fpr/pr18.asphttp://www.ifpri.org/pubs/fpr/pr18.asphttp://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/%3Fsrc=/climate/ipcc/emission/http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/%3Fsrc=/climate/ipcc/emission/https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/envacc/SFS0601%20EnvAccForAgriculture_exec.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/envacc/SFS0601%20EnvAccForAgriculture_exec.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/labour_market_trends/century_labour_market_change_mar2003.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/labour_market_trends/century_labour_market_change_mar2003.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp%3FID=950http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp%3FID=950http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/WRS0404/WRS0404b.pdfhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/WRS0404/WRS0404b.pdfhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/WRS0404/WRS0404b.pdfhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/WRS0404/WRS0404b.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp%3FID=950http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp%3FID=950http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/labour_market_trends/century_labour_market_change_mar2003.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/labour_market_trends/century_labour_market_change_mar2003.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/envacc/SFS0601%20EnvAccForAgriculture_exec.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/envacc/SFS0601%20EnvAccForAgriculture_exec.pdfhttp://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/%3Fsrc=/climate/ipcc/emission/http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/%3Fsrc=/climate/ipcc/emission/http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/fpr/pr18.asphttp://www.ifpri.org/pubs/fpr/pr18.asphttp://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm%3FPage=doc_library%26ItemID=14http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm%3FPage=doc_library%26ItemID=14http://www.foresight.gov.uk/OurWork/ActiveProjects/Obesity/Obesity.asphttp://www.foresight.gov.uk/OurWork/ActiveProjects/Obesity/Obesity.asphttp://www.fao.org/es/ESC/common/ecg/550/en/AgOut2017E.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/es/ESC/common/ecg/550/en/AgOut2017E.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/ag/ags/subjects/en/agmarket/docs/asia_sups.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/ag/ags/subjects/en/agmarket/docs/asia_sups.pdfhttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-EI-08-001/EN/KS-EI-08-001-EN.PDFhttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-EI-08-001/EN/KS-EI-08-001-EN.PDFhttp://www.eftec.co.uk/publicationsLink.php%3Fs=60%26np=19http://www.eftec.co.uk/publicationsLink.php%3Fs=60%26np=19https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/agrindexns.htmhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/Monthly%20brief/AnnexATheeffectsofweaksterlingonfoodprices,farmincomesandfoodtrade.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/Monthly%20brief/AnnexATheeffectsofweaksterlingonfoodprices,farmincomesandfoodtrade.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/fab/2008/FAE.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/fab/2008/FAE.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/pocketstats/foodpocketstats/default.asphttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/pocketstats/foodpocketstats/default.asphttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/orgeng.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/orgeng.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/auk/2008/default.asphttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/auk/2008/default.asphttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/statnot.htmhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/statnot.htmhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/statnot.htmhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/statnot.htmhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/natural-environ/eco-actionplan.htmhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/natural-environ/eco-actionplan.htmhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/Groceries%20paper%20May%202006.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/Groceries%20paper%20May%202006.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/foodsecurity/foodsecurity.pdfhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/pdf/sffs-fwd-060718.pdfhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/pdf/sffs-fwd-060718.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/hfr/econd_hfr.pdfhttps://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/hfr/econd_hfr.pdfhttp://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2008/080707_food_report.aspxhttp://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2008/080707_food_report.aspx


13/13


Pretty,J.N.,Brett,C., Gee,D., Hine, R.E., Mason,C.F.,Morison, J.I.L.,Raven,H.,Rayment,M.D., van der Bijl, G., 2000. An assessment of the total external costs of UKagriculture. Agric. Syst. 65, 113136.

Renting,H.,Rossing, W.,Groot,J., VanderPloeg,J., Laurent, C.,Perraud,D., Stobbelaar,D., Van Ittersum, M., 2009. Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A review ofconceptual approaches andprospects foran integrative transitionalframework.

J. Environ. Manage. 90, S112S123.RICS, 2009. RICS Rural Land Market Survey 2009, http://www.rics.org/NR/

rdonlyres/36B33D84-7903-45C1-BD33-C30C81EE43A1/0/rms h1 2009.pdfAccessed 22/07/09.

Rounsevell, M., Reay, D., in press. Land Use and Climate Change in the UK. Land UsePolicy.

Rounsevell, M., Ewart, F., Reginster, R., Leemans, R., Carter, T., 2005. Future sce-narios of European agricultural land use II. Projecting changes in cropland andgrassland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 107, 117135.

Senauer, B., 2008. Food market effects of a global resource shift toward bioenergy.Am. J. Agric. Econ. 90, 12261232.

Shoard, M., 1980. The Theft of the Countryside. Temple Smith, London.Somma, D., Lobkowicz, H., Pearson, J., i n press. Growing Americas fuel: an analysis

of corn and cellulosic ethanol feasibility in the United States. Clean Technol.Environ.

Sugden, C., 2009. Responding to high commodity prices. Asian Pacific Econ. Lit. 23,79105.

Sustainable Development Commission, 2007. Impacts on the Sustainability ofthe Food Supply in the UK, http://www.sdcommission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC ADAS 100Barrel execsum.pdfAccessed 23/07/09.

Sustainable Development Commission, 2009. Food Security and Sustainability:The Perfect Fit, http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=981

Accessed 23/07/09.Sylvester-Bradley, R.,Wiseman,J. (Eds.),2005. Yields of Farmed Species,Constraintsand Opportunities in the 21st Century. Nottingham University Press, Notting-ham, UK.

Tiffin, A., Tiffin, R., 1999. Estimates of food demand elasticities for Great Britain:19721994. J. Agric. Econ. 50, 140147.

Trostle,R., 2008. GlobalAgriculturalSupplyand Demand:FactorsContributingto theRecent Increase in Food Commodity Prices. USDA Economic Research Service,http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/WRS0801/ Accessed 2/07/2009.

Upham, P., Thornley, P., Tomei, J., Boucher, P., 2009. Substitutable biodiesel feed-stocks for the UK: a review of sustainability issues with reference to the UKRTFO. J. Clean. Prod 17, S37S45.

USDA, 2009. Agricultural commodity price spikes in the 1970s and 1990s: valuablelessons for today. Amber Waves 7, 1723.

Valuation Office Agency, 2009. Property Market Report, http://www.voa.gov.uk/publications/property market report/pmr-jan-09/pmr-jan-2009-web.pdfAccessed 2/07/2009.

Verburg,P., Schulp,C., Witte, N.,Veldkamp,A., 2006. Downscalingof landusechangescenarios to assess the dynamics of European landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Envi-ron. 114, 3956.

Ward, N., 2000. Actors, Institutions and Attitudes to Rural Development: The UKNational Report. The Nature of Rural Development: Towards a SustainableIntegrated Rural Policy in Europe.Departmentof Geography, University of New-castle upon Tyne.

WHO, 2003. Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. WHO Tech-nical Report Series 916. Report of a Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation,http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/AC911E/ac911e00.htm#Contents Accessed2/7/09.

World Bank, 2007. World Development Report 2008. World Bank, Washington.WRAP, 2008. The Food We Waste, Waste and Resources Action Plan, April. WRAP,

Banbury.
http://www.rics.org/NR/rdonlyres/36B33D84-7903-45C1-BD33-C30C81EE43A1/0/rms_h1_2009.pdfhttp://www.rics.org/NR/rdonlyres/36B33D84-7903-45C1-BD33-C30C81EE43A1/0/rms_h1_2009.pdfhttp://www.sdcommission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC_ADAS_100Barrel_execsum.pdfhttp://www.sdcommission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC_ADAS_100Barrel_execsum.pdfhttp://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=981http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/WRS0801/http://www.voa.gov.uk/publications/property_market_report/pmr-jan-09/pmr-jan-2009-web.pdfhttp://www.voa.gov.uk/publications/property_market_report/pmr-jan-09/pmr-jan-2009-web.pdfhttp://www.voa.gov.uk/publications/property_market_report/pmr-jan-09/pmr-jan-2009-web.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/docrep/005/AC911E/ac911e00.htmhttp://www.fao.org/docrep/005/AC911E/ac911e00.htmhttp://www.voa.gov.uk/publication

27 agriculture and land use - demand for and supply of agricultural commodities

Documents